This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status
of "received".
The status will be changed to "open" if the TC accepts it as
identifying a bug in the spec or decides it should be accepted
specially. Otherwise it will be closed without further consideration
(but
will be marked as "Revisitable")
The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to
the OASIS
WSBPEL TC pages
on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most
recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list
- the next posting as a TC document will include this issue.
The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue
when it is announced, is available at this
constant URL.
Issue - 220 - Is the elephant allowed to throw Standard Faults
in
more cases than specified?
Status: received
Date added: 23 Jun 2005
Categories: Fault
handling
Date submitted: 23 June 2005
Submitter: Danny van der
Rijn
Description:
The general question is in the subject line. However, let me
illustrate with a specific.
bpel:conflictingReceive:
from 14.5:
"If during the execution of a business process
instance,
two or more receive activities for the same partner link, portType,
operation and correlation set(s) are in fact simultaneously enabled,
then the standard fault bpws:conflictingReceive MUST be thrown by a
compliant (elephant). "
OK, got that. Now let's imagine that the 2 simultaneous
receive's are
for the same portType, operation and correlation set(s), but DIFFERENT
partnerLinks. Further imagine that when actually deployed, the 2
different partnerLinks are mapped to the same endpoint. As far as I can
tell, this is exactly the case where bpws:conflictingReceive would make
sense. However, one could argue that the programmer would be surprised
by receiving such a fault, since he never used the same partnerLink
twice.
Another example of this would be if one of the partnerLink's
partnerRole's was assigned to the other one. So they are fundamentally
the same, and even in a way detectable to the process in a portable
way, without an elephant. Would bpel:conflictingReceive be appropriate
here?
So the fundamental question I have is: are the
bpel:standardFault's available to be thrown BY THE ELEPHANT in ANY case
other than what is specifically called out? There is no language that I
can find that says an elephant MUST NOT throw standard faults except as
specified, nor can I find language that says that it MAY or SHOULD.
Of course, the programmer can throw them whenever he chooses,
but
that's not what I'm asking about.
Changes: 23 Jun 2005 - new issue
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be
accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
list (replying to this message should
automatically send your message to that list), or ensure
the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 220 -
[anything]" or is a reply
to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an
open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 220 - Proposed
resolution", without any Re: or similar.
To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the
address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).
Choreology Anti virus scan completed